twisty on 7/6/2009 at 03:21
Having completed Fallout 3 earlier this year, I decided to go back and play the first two games for nostalgic reasons.
Personally speaking I am torn somewhat between F2 and F3. In comparison to F1, F2 had a greater depth of story, was a much bigger game and contained more adult concepts. It was also a hell of a lot more buggier -- one of the buggiest games ever released imo; even after the official patch. F1, on the other hand, was the first of its kind, and was a highly original game.
In summary, I would rate F3 & F2 over F1 -- based purely on the enjoyment I got in playing those games -- but am unable to pick a clear favourite as they are both outstanding (and flawed) masterpieces in their own right. F1 was also a masterpiece but I liked it just a little less than the sequels.
driver on 7/6/2009 at 03:47
Tricky one. I stumbled over the first Fallout when I got it as part of a bargain pack which I bought for Stone Keep (Which I never got working). It holds a special place in my heart for surprising me with something completely new and mature, I'd not played anything else like it at the time. On the other hand, once you've finished it and know what's where, it's a very short game. There's only a couple of quests per town and the main quest doesn't really involve much other than 'go there, do that'.
Fallout 2, on the other hand, while it didn't blow me away like its predecessor, the size of the game means you can really get lost in it. I felt like it had more personality as you really got to develop your character more. I'm not sold on the silliness so much, though. I think there's one too many nudge-nudge wink-wink jokes going on (King Arthur, for example).
As for Fallout 3. Hrmmmm... No matter how much I enjoy it, I can't shake the 'Oblivion with guns' vibe. It is Fallout, but it's not Fallout at the same time. There are moments when some of the aesthetics come across with a very Fallout feel, but the complete change of interface and how you interact with the game is just so different. That and the writing just doesn't have the same feel to it.
Raider is critically hit for 250 points of damage.
Raider dances to the tune of lead.
There just wasn't anything like that in F3. The maturity of the previous two titles was replaced with in-your-face gore and vague hints of sex and drugs. While these themes were present in the previous two games the presentation was very different, as if they were part of the world you were in, not eye-candy designed to hook in the tards who won't play games without gratuitous violence.
I rate them all as individual games, but for different reasons. If I had to pick a favorite, I'd have to go for Fallout 2. If only for the fact you get to shoot the president in the balls.
PeeperStorm on 7/6/2009 at 16:55
Yeah, there's something special about a game where you can cut the brain out of the guy who invented Jet, stab your gay spouse in the crotch with a one handed chainsaw, star in your own pr0n movies, and get gimped by a super mutant with a Power Fist.
Fallout 2: It's where the real wastelanders hang out. Fallout 3 feels like the FPS sequal to Fallout Tactics: BOS.
Bluegrime on 7/6/2009 at 21:15
Fallout 1 was my favorite. Even though I've completed the game a dozen times, done every quest and dialogue, and know where to find every item I might need, its still a fun game.
Fallout 2 was bigger and had more to do, but I've only played through it cover to cover three times. Its most definitely a worthy sequel to the original, but it just didn't click with me the way the original did.
Fallout 3.. Meh.
Chuck on 9/7/2009 at 21:57
I never finished Fallout 3, and have little motivation to ever complete it. Perhaps it's my dislike of the Oblivion (another game I played for an hour) engine. The combat seemed silly, the over-the-top slo-mo violence tacked on to please the NMA folks just got old fast. I never made it out of the first town.
Fallout 1 and 2 are beloved to me and have been replayed countless times. To me, that's what an RPG should be. The age issue is a non-issue. If you can't go back and enjoy 2D (or for that matter text-only) games then you are missing out on history.
...goes back to game of civII
PeeperStorm on 10/7/2009 at 01:24
Quote Posted by Chuck
The combat seemed silly, the over-the-top slo-mo violence tacked on to please the NMA folks just got old fast.
...
goes back to game of civIIIf they wanted to please the NMA folks they would have made it an actual turn-based combat mode. And VATS wasn't "tacked on", rather it was the designers' intent that players would use
it rather than FPS mode almost all of the time. In other words, combat was designed to suck. Don't even get me started about how it's just as easy to hit someone's head in VATS as it is to hit the torso...
ZylonBane on 10/7/2009 at 05:12
"Episode"? WTF?
This week, on Fallout...
Koki on 10/7/2009 at 07:21
Quote Posted by Chuck
the over-the-top slo-mo violence tacked on to please the NMA folks
What the fuck, Chuck?
icemann on 10/7/2009 at 09:56
I loved the slow mo vats mode. Game would have been almost a straight up FPS with rpg elements (ala System Shock 2 / Bioshock) otherwise.
mothra on 14/7/2009 at 10:13
bioshock had rpg elements ?
fo3 certainly has more rpg than bs but far less good shooting than stalker. fo3 is fail in all departements except the place itself and some of the sidequests are pretty nice. fooling around with ppl never gets old, too. I would say the only thing working in FO3 is the open-world/sandbox aspect. I love to explore and wander around. once betheseda shines through in lousy writing and bad HUD it gets boring and bad again. combat is ridiculous, you get too overpowered much too quick.
